Sunni Militants Seize Control in Iraqi City of Mosul

New York Times ^ | JUNE 10, 2014 | SUADAD AL-SALHY and KAREEM FAHIMJUNE

[Seizethecarp]

Sunni militants on Tuesday seized control of military bases and the provincial governor’s building in Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, as police officers and army soldiers abandoned the town and left weapons, vehicles and even their uniforms to the gunmen.

By midday, the militants, believed to belong to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, an extremist group, were in control of much of central and southern Mosul, according to witnesses and local officials. Soldiers who fled the city said the militants had seized a jail, freeing the inmates.

“They took control of everything, and they are everywhere,” said one soldier who fled the city, giving only his first name, Haidar.

As a civilian exodus from the city intensified, the attack amounted to a stunning defeat for government forces, which have spent the past six days trying to beat back a surging militant offensive concentrated in central and northern Iraq. In Mosul, along with the cities of Samarra and Ramadi, the militants have struck at will, storming police stations, government offices and even a university.

[pfflier]

Put a demoncrat in charge and they can undo any military victory.

[winodog]

I thought Sunnis were outnumbered 10 to 1 by Shiites in Iraq. If so this is a very bold move

[Seizethecarp]

“Where’s NATO?”

Long gone. Maliki refused to sign immunity of foreign forces agreements with the US and presumably any other foreign NATO forces such as the ALBANIAN forces that helped liberate Mosul back in 2004, which I just read in researching the history of Mosul’s liberation today.

[Sacajaweau]

You would think the first thing would be to call a UN Meeting.

I remember the deal. One of the articles says the forces that are running away are USA trained. I'm betting they're UN trained.

[Seizethecarp]

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html

CIA says Sunni are 32-37% and they are overwhelming majority in the Western and Northern side of Iraq.

Note that Kurds in the North are Sunni but NOT Arab.

Mosul is a barely majority Arab city (with a LOT of other ethnic groups...Kurds, Turkmens, Assyrians) in a majority Kurdish surrounded province, IIRC.

See this very interesting Wiki website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul

“Some of the villages and towns around Mosul with its large Kurdish population were significantly affected by the 1991 rebellion suppression by the deposed former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, during the 1991 Kurdish-mounted, unsuccessful revolt against the regime. In the wake of the revolt’s failure, a swathe of Kurdish-populated territory in the north and northeast of Iraq fell under the control of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and Kurdistan Democratic Party, which established autonomous (and de facto independent) rule in the region. Mosul did not fall within the Kurdish-ruled area, but it was included in the no-fly zones imposed and patrolled by the United States and Britain between 1991 and 2003.

“Although this prevented Saddam’s forces from mounting large-scale military operations again in the region, it did not stop the regime from implementing a steady policy of “Arabisation” by which the demography of some areas of Nineveh Governorate were gradually changed. Despite the program Mosul and its surrounding villages remained home to a mixture of Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Armenians, Turkmens, a few Jews, and isolated populations of Yazidis and Mandeans. Saddam was able to garrison portions of the 5th Army within the Mosul city, had Mosul International Airport under military control, and recruited heavily from the city for his military’s officer corps; this may be due to the fact that most of the officers and generals of the Iraqi Army were from Mosul long before the Saddam regime era.”

“In November 2004, concurrently with the US and Iraqi attack on the city of Fallujah, the Battle of Mosul (2004) began. On November 10, insurgents conducted coordinated attacks on the police stations. The policemen who were not killed in the fighting fled the city, leaving Mosul without any civil police force for about a month. However, soon after the insurgents’ campaign to overrun the city had begun, elements from the 25th Infantry Division and components from the Multinational force composed mainly of Albanian forces, took the offensive and began to maneuver into the most dangerous parts of the city. Fighting continued well into the 11th with the insurgents on the defensive and US forces scouring neighborhoods for any resistance.”

[nathanbedford]

[I think we now have the perspective to judge that the Iraq war was the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, for the wrong reasons, fought the wrong way against the wrong enemy. Let me hasten to add that I got it all wrong; I supported the Iraq war at the outset and I have come to deeply regret that position. In November 2004 I wrote what I call my mea culpa confessing my mistake and trying to find a better way to keep America safe.]

Here is the post from 2004:

I agree with your comments and only wish that I could assert on my own behalf as you can that I foresaw the tragedy before the fact, but I cannot. Before the invasion I wrote that "God help me" I wanted the invasion to begin as soon as possible before the inspection regime or the French could so undermine the administration that the war could not be started.

Unlike these treacherous neocons, I will admit that I was wrong. In my own defense I can say, for what it's worth, that I was never seduced by the idea of imposing Wilsonian democracy on Iraq, although I of course would not have spurned it, but I saw the war in what I arrogantly believed were grown up and real world considerations of geopolitics. I wanted forward bases in the Mideast from which to strike at Syria and Iran if intimidation alone did not work. I wanted us to get all our hands on the oil fields to deprive Muslim terrorists of petrodollars with which to buy weapons of mass destruction. I wanted us to demonstrate to the Muslim world that no leader could sleep safe if he played a double game with America. I wanted to so intimidate the Muslim world with our military prowess that they themselves would turn against the terrorists in their midst because I believed, and still believe, that the only way we ultimately can win this war is to turn the sane Muslims against the crazies. And, of course, I wanted a regime change as the only effective defense against WMD's in Iraq. My mistake, and I believe Bush's, was to underestimate the tenacity of the Muslim belief system and to see the war in a two dimensional geographical box, like a game of checkers, where squares were to be taken and held.

Not only was I wrong but the result has been calamitous and every one of the "strategic" reasons for waging war in Iraq have been stood on its head. I suspect that the main reason there has been no terrorist attack on the heartland is because Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, as well as Iran, are quite content to see America founder in Iraq. Iran, likewise, is the big winner from all of this as it moves closer to upsetting the entire balance of power in the Middle East when it acquires the bomb and perhaps fashions a Shi'ite Crescent running to the Mediterranean Sea. I believe my error came out of the false understanding of the nature of the global intergenerational war against terrorism: that somehow it was a war which could be conceived of in geographical terms. It is not-- although if it is lost the ultimate impact will be geographical. This is a war for the soul of Islam and we must not lose our own souls before we can save theirs.

Perhaps the very worst legacy of this whole Irak tragedy is that we are a daily demonstrating to the world that we are presently incapable of winning asymmetrical wars of terrorism. The Israelis just proved that in Lebanon. The people in Afghanistan are beginning to understand it. The tide in the Muslim world is rising against us as their fear drains away. So the goal of saving the soul of Islam has been made more elusive.

To compound the catastrophe, the "socialist" world of Cuba and Venezuela, Russia and China can read the daily events in Iraq and are emboldened as they have not been since the first Iraq war and seem eager to make mischief 1960s style.

Meanwhile, we've increased the danger of losing our own soul as defined as the will to win. Western Europe already lacks it and half of America possesses an anemic red blood count. Another tragedy of the Iraq war might will be to cause the installation of a Democrat regime in America which will align itself with the appeasers in Europe and so fatally succumb to jihad. The danger is as near as next Tuesday when, if the Republicans suffer a stinging repudiation of the polls, Bush might be left in as feckless a state as Gerald Ford was during the final pathetic agony of Vietnam.

Our dilemma is that we cannot win in Iraq and we cannot abandon it. We cannot win until we learn how to fight asymmetrical insurgencies against our occupation. We show no evidence that we have any idea how to do this at a price America is willing to pay. The training up of Iraqi forces, especially the police, is clearly a failure. So we are mired in a situation that spills our blood and empties our treasury and turns our friends against us. Meanwhile, the existential threat against America, represented by Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon which it passes off to terrorists to explode in the heartland, grows daily closer to reality. Our efforts in Iraq have so attenuated our military force that we probably cannot mount an invasion and air power alone probably cannot interdict Iran's nuclear program. This is well known to the whole world and especially to Iran so our ability to intimidate the Iranians into good behavior has bled into the sands of Iraq along with the Bush Doctrine.

Soon it will be fashionable even in conservative circles to blame Bush just as the neocons now are doing so ignominiously. My belief is that the miscalculation was to presume that the Iraqis, read Muslims, would behave rationally when presented with the opportunity for self-determination and democracy. It is not really that we made fatal tactical military mistakes in Iraq which we can lay at the feet of Bush or Rumsfeld, rather it is the nature of the traditional Muslim society that caused all of this bloodshed to be inevitable. Iraq has revealed that America has no stomach for the pain which must be endured to see such a traditional Muslim society through to Western democratic values.

Asymmetrical warfare works against armies of occupation but these tactics do not work against 21st-century Blitzkrieg, American-style. I fear that the American military will engage in another Vietnam style soul-searching and draw the wrong conclusion, that military force does not work at all in the war against terrorism. I am tempted, therefore, to argue that it was the occupation and not the war itself which was the bridge too far. After Iraq, I am humble enough to admit and perhaps it is I who misses the lesson.

I am well aware that new military adventures will be virtually impossible to sell until the inevitable happens: a strike is made against the homeland. If Al Qaeda strikes with anything less than a mortal blow, ie. a series of nuclear explosions, America might yet be able to find its finest hour. But strike it must if Al Qaeda intends fulfill its ambitions. God grant that they settle for half a loaf with an intensity level not exceeding 911.

We must fashion a new policy, a new strategy for winning this intergenerational worldwide war against a portion of 1.4 billion Muslims who inhabit the earth. We must turn rational Islam against this jihad or we will perish because we will rot from the inside out or we will simply surrender after our cities are turned into glass. We cannot hope to prevail if we eschew all military operations as ultimately counterproductive. We must find what works. Above all, we must not lose our soul.

[wetphoenix]

~I said it Day One.

If we don’t stay there for at least 20 or more years, this was going to inevitably happen.

It’s naive to think these people can be tamed and suddenly have Western Style democracy.~

What would change in 20 years?
Bottom line is that these guys must have Saddam, Assad or whoever to set rules and enforce it via chopping body parts of the most extreme haters.
The alternative is an all out war on Jews, women, Christians, fellow muslims etc.

~Should have let the Kurds have the entire country.~

Do you realize that a Kurd cause is socialist to boot?
BTW, I hate communists deeply but they are an improvement comparing to jihadis.
Communists tend to a republican type of government, flawed though via rigged elections and government propaganda, and they are also encouraging education.
Education makes their subjects see through a government propaganda and observe other flaws of communism as a system, and they already have a republic to fix it, given they are able to fix elections and overcome corruption. That is a primary reason why no communist regime ever lived too long.
And muslims are too far into a 7th century to implement any of the above, even if unhappy with their rule.

[CivilWarBrewing]

Sssshhhhh... Don’t tell the mainstream media! This is mighty embarrassing for Obamadullah, King of Islamerica!

[BuckeyeTexan]

Maliki called on "all powers — political, financial and popular — to stop the terrorism and bring life to normal ..." 

Nope. You wanted us to go home. We did. We ain't comin' back.

[blueunicorn6]

So, the people the Democrats have been arming and training in Syria have attacked the government we support in Iraq?

Wow. What’s Obama’s next move. Releasing everyone in prison in the US?

[blueunicorn6]

Dear Democrats:

You’d better get your behinds up to the White House and tell Obama he’s sick and has to resign before he screws things up so bad that even YOU will be in the crap.

Love and kisses!

[1Old Pro]

OBAMA LOST IN:

1) Iraq
2) Afganistan
3) Pakistan
4) Ukraine
5) LIBYA
We’re giving up in Cuba, Islamist extremists are kidnapping children and getting away with it...

This is horrific

[headsonpikes]

“This is horrific”

Luckily, the arrival of millions of New Americans at the Mexican border will boost the numbers of those who think the Obama regime is “terrific”.

[abb]

A similar argument could be made about WWII in Europe. Save, the UK, was western Europe worth saving from Hitler? With friends like France over the past 65 years, the US didn’t need enemies. Also, we’ve spent trillions in treasure defending them from communism. How has that worked out?

The geopolitical energy situation being what it was ten to fifteen years ago, guaranteeing the security of Middle East oil supplies made some sense then.

Now, not so much. As domestic energy production ramps up, hopefully the ragheads can go back to the medieval lifestyles they claim to pine for.

[Owl558]

“I think we now have the perspective to judge that the Iraq war was...fought the wrong way against the wrong enemy.”

We used to know how to topple enemy governments and replace them with our own dictators. This strategy minimized American casualties, preserved our military readiness, and served our interests. The whole Iraq/Afghanistan thing went off the rails when President Bush decided to nation build.

I’ve had the same epiphany as you. I supported both wars and now regret that decision.

[winoneforthegipper]

ISIS received US support in it’s effort against Assad in Syria....

Truth.